Laserfiche WebLink
Frenchman Place 5th Addition <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />The property to the north is zoned Medium Density Multiple Family Residential (R-5) and is <br />occupied by an apartment. The property to the east, south, and west are zoned General Business <br />(C-2) and is occupied by a medical office buildings and a daycare. The property to the west is <br />zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is occupied by a grocery store, restaurant, and <br />retail uses. <br /> <br />B. Existing Site Characteristics <br /> <br />The property is vacant and has some wetlands on site. The property is bisected diagonally by a <br />50-foot wide utility transmission line easement. The property also has a sanitary sewer easement <br />running north to south through the site. <br /> <br />3. BACKGROUND: <br /> <br />The applicant proposed the rezoning and a different plan with the sketch plan review process in <br />late 2022. The EDA, Planning Commission, and City Council all commented on the plans and <br />rezoning of the property from commercial to multi-family residential. <br /> <br />The EDA generally agreed that a multi-family residential use on the property may be more <br />viable than commercial uses, since the visibility is not great. They stated that there is commercial <br />along CSAH 8 and it does fulfill the vision of the City to have commercial uses along CSAH 8. <br />They states that the property is the back side of the commercial uses and would allow residents <br />to walk to the adjacent commercial uses. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission and City Council generally felt comfortable with an apartment use on <br />the commercially-zoned property. They did have concerns about the sketch plan in regards to <br />building placement, circulation, and access points. They stated this is an important location in the <br />area. The existing development in the area is well planned and has quality architecture and <br />building materials. They encouraged the creation of a plan that blends in with the surrounding <br />development. The proposed plans seems to have addressed the concerns the Commission and <br />Council expressed. <br /> <br />The applicant attend a Parks Commission meetings this year to discuss the proposed public park. <br />The update for that is in the Park Dedication/Openspace section of this report. <br /> <br />4. ANALYSIS: <br /> <br />A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making <br /> <br />The City has discretion in approving or denying a comprehensive plan amendment on whether or <br />not the proposed project has impacts on regional systems including transportation, wastewater <br />and regional parks. The City has a higher level of discretion with a comprehensive plan because <br />the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards. <br /> <br />The City has discretion in approving or denying rezoning applications, based on whether or not <br />the proposed project meets the standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning <br />Ordinance requirements. If the City finds that all the applicable standards are met, the rezoning